John A. Fallon III, who was fired as president of Eastern Michigan University after the on-campus rape and murder of a student was kept secret for 10 weeks, has been named an associate vice president at Ball State University.

Ball State’s board of trustees on Friday approved the appointment of Fallon as vice president for economic development and community engagement at a salary of $146,000.

He will initiate and coordinate university activities to serve the community and economic development needs of the state, including economic and workforce development. His first day on campus was March 1.

Asked by The Star Press about Fallon’s role in failing to disclose the rape and murder, BSU spokeswoman Joan Todd said: “We are aware of John’s employment history, including his time at Eastern Michigan. He was forthcoming about that challenging period and the lessons learned from it.

Yikes! Well, good luck with that, Ball State. I’m not sure Fallon deserves to be in higher education after covering up a murder, and he didn’t exactly demonstrate “great leadership” beyond that either. But hey, it ain’t our problem anymore.

35 responses to ““Fired EMU president lands VP job at BSU””

There’s still no proof he covered it up…as far as we all know Jim Vick covered it up by not properly reporting to Fallon and kept him in the dark with the help of the chief of police. I still think Fallon was the best president we’ve had at least since before Kirkpatrick (Willis doesn’t count, he had it easy as a transitional guy).

Three EMU employees lost their jobs for the murder cover up: Fallon, Vick and chief of police Cindy Hall. No one else lost their jobs, or were even reprimanded, with one partial exception: University counsel Ken McKanders was given a letter of censure by a member of the Board of Regents. He left the University about 3 years later. A dozen or more other persons were involved in withholding information from the public and the family of Laura Dickinson, the victim. Some, such as Ted Coutilish, remain at EMU and powerful and well compensated.

If John Fallon did not actively participate in a cover up, he willfully refused to find out the truth of a student’s death on campus. And lots of student employees suspected a murder for weeks while the “no foul play” line was maintained by the university. The death was suspicious, and Fallon had no suspicions. He has no place in higher education.

First off, I don’t think Vick should be working in higher ed either, but as is the case with Fallon, no one asked my opinion on the matter. Second, I think Fallon clearly drove the bus into the ditch, which is not exactly the markings of a good president. I didn’t work with him directly, but I did meet him and interact with him a number of times, and that included an interesting visit he made directly to me back in 2006, which I blog about here.

John came across as a nice guy and a good politician, but I think as president of EMU, he was in way over his head. And as Mark points out in his comment, he either was a part of the cover-up or he didn’t realize the cover-up was happening. Either way, not smart.

I had the opportunity to speak with John Fallon at a couple of alumni events. He seemed like an OK guy who cared about EMU. Not sure what he knew and when, but if he didn’t, he certainly should have been more proactive in getting to the bottom of the Laura Dickinson case.
I still wonder what it is he had to say that the Regents did not allow him to say before they fired him. Looking at some of the suspect characters, a few of them probably needed to be called out on their antics. It’s no secret to most on campus that the Regents conduct all of their business in the back room during lunch and then trot out an orchestrated chorus of “yeas” and nays” at the actual meeting. Either there or at one of the local steakhouses.

Fallon had nothing to say of substance, and his talk of revealing Regent secrets regarding Laura Dickinson’s murder was empty talk. He never produced any evidence. Some Regents were convinced that he should be fired only because he tried to threaten them, but they were empty threats. Don’t buy Fallon’s lie that he had damaging info on his superiors.

Besides his role in the Dickinson murder cover-up, let me mention two other things about Fallon’s presidency that doesn’t exactly leave me thinking he was just a nice guy in the wrong place at the wrong time. First, that’s when the faculty union went on strike and when we were pushed into an arbitrator situation, which a) cost the university a lot of money, and b) more or less found for the faculty. That was a long and ugly year, and either as president he didn’t have the guts to stand up to the board or he supported the idea of trying to take down the faculty union.

And then after Fallon was fired, he took a scorch the earth approach to his relationship with EMU. Recall that he went on Larry King to “defend” his “name,” he sued EMU (and lost), and he said he was writing a book about the whole experience, a book that appears to have been abandoned.

No, IMO Fallon looked and sounded like a good guy, but his actions and inactions would suggest otherwise.

Very well put, sitedad. Fallon knew how to seem friendly and look nice in his suit, but never initiated anything of substance here, and failed to show curiosity about the university. Not capable of leadership.

Hi! My name is Kody Klein. I’m the news editor at the Eastern Echo and one of my writers is working on an article about this.

We are adamant about capturing a balanced perspective of how people in the EMU and Ypsilanti communities feel about this.

If you would like to comment, please email me at kody.jon.klein@gmail.com as soon as possible. We prefer not to quote from emails, so please include your name and phone number so that we may arrange a personal interview or a phone interview.

I respectfully disagree. This is not an arbitrary blog, but rather one that EMU faculty, alumni, and administrators frequently read and contribute to via their comments.

I did not mean to offend you with my post and I’m sorry if it did. However, it seems like a topic that a lot of people feel strongly about and I wanted to make it known that we are working on an article about it. It seemed to be an equitable way to provide people with an opportunity to comment publicly.

Furthermore, arranging interviews, whether in person or by phone, would be far more reliable and ethical than quoting comments from your blog. There is no way for me to verify who commenters like “salty dog” or “Huron Hal” are and thus I cannot provide any perspective as to who they are or why anyone should care what they think. However, if they or anyone else elect to be interviewed, I can find out who they are and why their opinion is relevant. For example, “[EMU faculty/alumnus/administrator] said…” is far more transparent and informative than “EMUTalk reader, ‘salty dog,’ said…”

I appreciate your concern, fully acknowledge your authority on EMUTalk, and will not be offended if you remove my post. But again, I meant no disrespect and I do not think that providing people the opportunity to comment publicly is unnecessary or unethical. Perhaps no one will respond to my comment, but what harm does it do to post it?

The issue of “identity,” “pseduoidentity,” anonymity, etc., are complicated ones made all the more complicated in the digital age. It certainly is a lot more complicated than journalism typically makes it: a “real person” told me this, so it must be “true;” a “fake name” told me something, so it might not; pseudonym are bad, but the often quoted “anonymous source” is perfectly okay; etc. It makes for some interesting discussions in some of the rhetorical theory and digital media courses I teach, I can tell you that.

But I would humbly suggest three things as you pursue the story. First, I think EMUTalk.org– while not necessarily a “reliable” source of “news” (all these scare quotes!!)– does constitute a source, and I don’t think there is anything at all irresponsible or fuzzy about quoting from it in another blog, newspaper, magazine, etc. Second, if someone is not willing to identify themselves by name here, there’s a pretty good chance they don’t want to identify themselves by name in the student newspaper. And again, I’m not sure what difference there is in terms of credibility if it says “an anonymous source said” versus “a commenter going by the name salty dog said.”

And third, reporting generally means you have to go to the source rather than have the source come to you.

The Echo is doing some solid work these days, and Kody’s post is indicative of that diligence. Notice that he is asking for people to email him independently, so that he can arrange a personal interview or phone interview that would be attributed to an existing person. At that point, he would come to the source.

@Kody: Don’t worry about offending Sitedad. This blog is all about debate and lively banter and discussion. He’s a veteran referee.

Hello Sitedad — As adviser to the Echo I thought I’d chime in on this one. You both raise good points that call to mind two old saws:

– The times they are a-changing.

– The more things change, the more they stay the same.

In some ways, both describe what’s happening right now in in the news business.

One change you point out (and something that would not even be an issue a decade ago) is sourcing information on the Internet. Quoting from your blog (or any other) on another blog or in an article is not necessarily irresponsible. Many are rich in information not found elsewhere. Furthermore, in many cases, just because a source hides behind a pseudonym does not mean that source doesn’t have facts to share or valid opinions worthy of consideration.

The thing that hasn’t changed, and in my opinion is still what sets professional journalists apart from bloggers, is that the use of anonymous sources (or allowing contributors to use a pseudonym) is not done casually but rather is subject to (or at least should be) rigorous review prior to granting anonymous status and should be done for serious reasons, such as if the source’s life and/or livelihood would be jeopardized should his/her true identity be revealed.

For instance, granting sources anonymity because they don’t want anyone to know they think the Eagles will only go 3-9 in football this fall is not worth a journalist putting his/her reputation and possibly career on the line to protect a source, which is what an ethical journalist would do if he/she and the editors feel the story is too important not to tell. There’s a nice quick summary of the history of journalists who have gone to jail rather than reveal sources here:

The key thing for a journalist, unlike a blogger, is that when granting a source anonymity, the journalist actually knows the real identity of the source — in other words, the journalist has determined the source is a real person with valid reasons for requesting anonymity. So, to bring the issue back to Kody Klein and the Eastern Echo, I think your suggestion that this site is quotable is correct with the understanding that while you do often have news on your site, you brand it as a news site. At the same time, Kody’s request for sources willing to be publicly identified or at least to reveal their identity to him and request anonymity in exchange for critical information for an article on former president John Fallon or any other topic for that matter, shows he is striving to uphold the professional ethics of the field. In particular, I’ll point to a couple items from the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics:

— Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources’ reliability.
— Always question sources’ motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
— Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story.

In this new digital journalism age, Kody’s use of social media to find sources reflects a growing trend in journalism. The upside to this method is that one might reach sources one wouldn’t normally have access to; the downside is, to paraphrase an old Eric Utne comment, one could easily find one’s self in a “ghetto of like-minded people.” In other words, using social media to find sources for a story is perhaps the new way of getting the pulse of the community or asking “the man on the street” what he thinks, but at the same time, depending on which social media one is using, one runs the risk of gauging “public” sentiment from within a closed social group, i.e., your own FB or LinkedIn circles. Needless to say, using social media to round up sources totally excludes those without access to digital technology for reasons of poverty, religious beliefs, age, etc. Don’t their voices deserve to be heard, too?

Kevin, I don’t want to come across as baggin’ on Kody or anyone else at The Echo. I have a lot of journalism and/or Echo folks as students in my classes and I know that he and the rest of that crew are trying their best and are also having “learning moments” along the way. And like Geoff said, I’m not offended at all– just trying to participate in the learning moment.

I will say this though: I’m not sure I agree with you that it is a good practice for journalists to solicit for people who might be interested in giving an opinion/interview on a blog or just about any other forum. Maybe a better approach would be to try to do some searches for emails based on the “real names” of people posting here. It seems to me the tough part of reporting is going out to get your sources and not the other way around– which, btw, is why I am generally not a reporter.

Let me put it to you like this: would it be okay for Kody (or anyone else) to post a comment to the starpress.com web site asking for posters to contact that reporter for an interview? Probably not, right?

As for the distinction between newspapers and blogs in terms of the ethics and reliability of sources: oh please, give me a break. There are countless examples where MainStreamMedia has done some very VERY shady things, so the idea that “professional journalists” are somehow different and automatically more ethical, authoritative, and credible than bloggers (or anyone else writing things on the internet) is ridiculous. Sure, there’s a code of ethics for journalist, just as there are spoken and unspoken codes of ethics for doctors, lawyers, bankers, politicians, teachers, and professors. But the mere existence of such codes doesn’t mean much if professionals don’t follow those codes, and it certainly is not the distinguishing feature of a “journalist.”

The collapse of a clear definition of journalism is one of the biggest problems MSM has, in my opinion. When newspapers were the only way to actually get “news” and information, there was an automatic sort of ethos built in. Newspapers were “authoritative” for for no other reason than there was no meaningful alternative. That’s all gone and the line between a blog like this and a newspaper as a source of news has been largely erased, which means the claim “we’re professional journalists and you’re not so we automatically know better” doesn’t work well anymore. Instead, real professional journalists need to work even harder than before in establishing their credibility not through some simple label– the flash of a press badge, for example– but through what they actually do and say.

I think you underestimate our reporting. The comment I left was not at all the extent of our research. We are actively seeking people to comment on the issue and contacting them individually. We ARE going to our sources. The comment I left was a casual measure auxiliary to more focused and rigorous research.

I also respectfully disagree with your perspective of journalism. I wholeheartedly agree that the advancements of individualized expression prompted by new media have increased the expectations of journalists. We must be more rigorously researched, more timely, and in general more in tune with the pulse of our audience. However, we are actively evolving with the environment.

I would go so far as to say that my comment is a sign of that evolution, rather than a symptom of professional lethargy.

To your question about whether I would post on starpress.com, I will solicit interviews where ever I think is necessary or effective. Case in point, a reader commented on ClickOnDetroit.com’s story about last week’s off-campus shooting, claiming that he or she had witnessed part of the incident. I promptly posted a response to that comment asking the reader to email me in order to set up an interview. I would have done that on any website. I will do anything to get in touch with the people I need to talk to. That’s tenacity, not laziness.

Lastly, I’m sorry, but you simply cannot compare blogging to journalism. Case in point was your post about the incident at EMU Up North. Where you posted a brief blog asking if anyone knew what happened, I actively called Bellaire Police Department, Antrim County Sheriff’s Department, faculty from the program, EMU administrators, and security at Shanty Creek Resorts. I’ve relentlessly pursued that story, hitting dead end after dead end, one person after another refusing to comment. But I’m still chasing it because I want my readers to know what happened and I want to base my coverage on something more substantial than an anonymous email I received from a concerned parent.

As of yet, I’ve interviewed several people who were directly involved with the incident and I’m awaiting the police report from the Antrim County Sheriff’s office, having FOIAed it earlier this week.

My point is that where you, and most bloggers, leisurely write a post and then forget about it, I actively pursue the story from as many angles as possible, as would any GOOD journalist. Furthermore, unlike blogs, what we publish is not based on personal conjecture, but rather the legitimate and meaningful evidence we are able to collect.

What concerns me is that your perception of journalism seems ubiquitous. There’s this idea that the advent of blogging and social platforms like Twitter and Facebook has made our profession obsolete. It almost goes beyond apathy to antipathy, as though the hoi polloi, complacent with free unsubstantiated information, want us to fail. I think that would be, without exaggeration, catastrophic to freedom.

Although journalists make mistakes, we are held to a standard and are thereby subjected to severe scrutiny when we fall short (I suggest you read the comments on EasternEcho.com). Whereas, bloggers, Twitter birds and Facebook socialites, can stand at their virtual pulpit and perpetuate whatever unfounded rhetoric they want, without concern for ethics or accuracy. No one is going to fire them. No one is going to sue them. They can say whatever they want and however they want to. Thereby, there is no way to appraise the veracity of their rhetoric.

In a world without journalists, obtaining unbiased, veracious information would be nearly impossible. Perhaps that’s hyperbolic, but certainly not without reason.

Kody, ordinarily I’d advise you not to get into an argument with someone who buys ink by the barrel, but since you have your own supply, I’ll just pull up a lawn chair, pop some popcorn, and watch the show.

Heh. Save the popcorn, Rimshot. I’m not going to argue about social media versus the blogosphere versus journalism or whatever here. I could; this is an area of scholarship for me, and it’s something I teach about on a fairly regular basis. But I won’t. Take a class from me instead.

And Kody’s response strikes me as a smidge defensive, but that’s okay too.

Thanks for the reply Steve and for continuing to support the students and the learning moments we all have, student, faculty and staff alike.

In response to your first point, about seeking sources off blogs, I didn’t say it was necessarily a good thing, I said it was “growing trend” and I clearly noted the downside included the “man on the street” pool would necessarily be limited to those with access to the internet, if not smaller pools within that subset.

Furthermore, MSM is already using social media to solicit stories – they do it all the time, and even old-line media, newspapers, did it for years with boxes asking for reader input on upcoming stories and topics. How about the Michigan Radio appeals for listeners to sign up to share their expertise? How about newspapers and TV stations asking for news tips? How about formal appeals, like one last year in a story about autism in the New York Times?

What I’m getting at is exactly what you’re saying – “It seems to me the tough part of reporting is going out to get your sources” which is what journalists are doing in a new and different way.

As for the distinction between newspapers and blogs, no, I won’t give you a break – OK, maybe half a break. Yes, there are reliable and ethical blogs and there are unreliable and unethical newspapers (I’m thinking News of the World and their hacking scandal), but what I will stand by is the notion that there is such a thing as a professional journalist – and merely having a blog doesn’t not make one a professional journalist though it might allow one to practice journalism. If I had to sum it up simply, I’d say a professional journalist is one who at least strives to follow a code of professional ethics like the SPJ code aforementioned and one who is willing to stand by his/her work by signing his/her name to it and publishing it for public consumption, review, criticism and comment.

Furthermore, I respectfully disagree with your assertion that “the line between a blog like this and a newspaper as a source of news has been largely erased,” because a newspaper (and its companion website) presents the news and information for the most part with by-lined work based on research and fact that the reporters and editors would be willing to go to great lengths to defend (and I’m implying nothing to the contrary about your blog here – I’m arguing “newspaper vs. blog” in general). Many blogs are highly researched, fact-based and objective, which is what newspapers strive for; but a sophisticated reader of contemporary media may not have such expectations for a blog – in fact, the opposite might be expected, i.e., that the blog is designed to promote a particular viewpoint, with carefully presented data and well-crafted messaging.

So, for instance, your assertion regarding Fallon, that “either as president he didn’t have the guts to stand up to the board or he supported the idea of trying to take down the faculty union,” might find a home on the Opinions page of a newspaper, but a news editor would say, “Says who?” or “What evidence do you have to back that claim up.” Maybe he did stand up to the board and lost; maybe he really had no feelings about the union one way or the other, but without evidence, like quotes from a regent or Fallon himself or copies of emails that you obtain via a FOIA request, it’s merely conjecture, which is fine and good for a discussion around the ol’ cracker barrel in the [electronic] general store, but it ain’t news.

As for your last point, hear, hear! “Instead, real professional journalists need to work even harder than before in establishing their credibility not through some simple label– the flash of a press badge, for example– but through what they actually do and say.” And I’d add that bloggers who seek to influence civil discourse on topics of substance do so, too.

As for the distinction between newspapers and blogs, no, I won’t give you a break – OK, maybe half a break. Yes, there are reliable and ethical blogs and there are unreliable and unethical newspapers (I’m thinking News of the World and their hacking scandal), but what I will stand by is the notion that there is such a thing as a professional journalist – and merely having a blog doesn’t not make one a professional journalist though it might allow one to practice journalism. If I had to sum it up simply, I’d say a professional journalist is one who at least strives to follow a code of professional ethics like the SPJ code aforementioned and one who is willing to stand by his/her work by signing his/her name to it and publishing it for public consumption, review, criticism and comment.

This is a mighty slippery definition, Kevin. In my mind, this means that none of the work done by Fox News constitutes “journalism;” and I suspect that someone with a different political point of view might think of The New York Times as not being ethical journalists.

That part about how it might be possible to practice journalism if you had a blog, but that having a blog doesn’t make you a professional journalist: I’m just not sure what that means. If I follow the ethical codes of SPJ (and btw, unless we’re going to appeal to an “ethics police,” trying to figure out who is and isn’t following the code is always going to be a matter of interpretation, right?), does that mean I am a professional journalist? Can I do that as a common citizen? Or do I have to actually be employed as a journalist?

And I still maintain that the line between “blog” and “newspaper” (or “magazine”) is pretty arbitrary. I’ve been practicing/researching/teaching stuff about blogs for about 10 or so years now, and honestly, I’m still not very satisfied with the definition of “blog.” When they were first coming on the scene, MSM derided blogs as amateurish crap that could never take the place of “real” journalism, and the popular view was that blogs were more or less online diaries. That was never the case, and it is even less the case now. I used to try to define blogs as being distinguished by the means of delivery– a more or less technical matter of content management systems– but since most newspaper web sites are more or less presented as blogs, that distinction falls for me too.

You also wrote:

So, for instance, your assertion regarding Fallon, that “either as president he didn’t have the guts to stand up to the board or he supported the idea of trying to take down the faculty union,” might find a home on the Opinions page of a newspaper, but a news editor would say, “Says who?” or “What evidence do you have to back that claim up.” Maybe he did stand up to the board and lost; maybe he really had no feelings about the union one way or the other, but without evidence, like quotes from a regent or Fallon himself or copies of emails that you obtain via a FOIA request, it’s merely conjecture, which is fine and good for a discussion around the ol’ cracker barrel in the [electronic] general store, but it ain’t news.

Sure, but newspapers still have op-ed pieces, right? And like most newspapers, I think that EMUTalk.org is a space that includes both “news” and op-ed content. In fact, I’d go so far as to say that most posts on EMUTalk begin as some kind of news content– as reported elsewhere (like with this post), as posted to the EMU community at large, as something I stumble across, or as something someone sends me. Though I will agree with you that for the most part this is a space to discuss news rather than as a source of reporting.

But even that is a fuzzy line. I see your point about my assertion about Fallon. However, if a reporter calls me up and says “what’s your opinion of John Fallon?” and I give this as an answer, it then gets re-presented in the newspaper as “news.” So, me saying it/posting it here = op-ed/not journalism. Me being quoted as saying the exact same thing in the paper = reporting/journalism. Really?

I’ve gone through another barrel of ink, so I’ll stop. It’s not that I think journalism is going away or that it ought to go away. But I do think that the sanctimonious “we’re the fourth branch of government that protects democracy” self-congratulatory view journalists frequently have of their profession is a bunch of hooey and does them no good in an era where it’s a lot easier for people get news and information without the apparatus of MSM.

Wow, stop looking at a thread for a few days and it turns into a serious discussion about media in the 21st century! I came looking to get me some Fallon bashing and ended up learning something. Now I feel smart.

I guess you have to be into this kind of stuff (blog vs newspaper and what constitutes journalism) to appreciate. Sort of like what’s what’s the best fishing lure….boring to me but try to tell that to a person who love fishing. Anyway, enjoy debating the irrelevant guys (opps sorry) I mean enjoy debating this really interesting stuff (or whatever it’s called).

All you guys talking about how “nice guy” Fallon was say he was a “good President”…why? What exactly did he do that was so “good” as a President?

A good looking guy with a full head of hair and a nice suit making pretty speeches doesn’t make a good leader. He wanted to be a “union buster” and WALKED AWAY during negotiations. Not only that, his camp gave the administration demands with like 11 minutes to read the contract… 11 minutes. I took longer to read my mortgage. He showed nothing but contempt for the educators of this university.

No evidence he was involved in the cover up? Laura Dickinson’s “no foul play” death was announced around Christmas break, and then Feb. it hits they have a suspect. You want to blame just Jim Vick (who deserves blame) but…if what you say is true that’s one shitty President who didn’t know what was happening with the people in his administration.

Fallon failed here at EMU and when your resume says “murder cover up” you have no place in higher education.

So yeah…I expect more from a University President than being good looking and nice speeches.

Thanks for sharing, Kody. The Freeman Hendrix take on this is kind of interesting because I certainly don’t recall Hendrix being around here a whole lot and knowing what was going on. I’m a little surprised that he felt qualified to comment at all.

the Echo article said: “Freman Hendrix, who was EMU’s chief governmental relations officer and worked closely with Fallon, said he thinks Fallon is a “good man and a very well intentioned person.” Hendrix emphasized that Fallon had “virtually an unblemished record” prior to the scandal. ”

Back to Sitedad’s observations (which I agree with)… did they “virtually” forget his “union busting” negotiations? The constant delays to the negotiating team? The fact the EMU AAUP had to file freedom of information to get financial info that should have (and easily could have) been provided? His refusal to go into binding arbitration? Walking away after giving the negotiating team like 15 minutes to read administrations proposal? Unblemished my ass… he failed.

And yeah…when “Murder cover up” is on your resume, it should be a deal breaker.

Higher Education News

In the Local Media

Ypsi-Arbor Bloggers

Welcome

EMUtalk.org is NOT affiliated with Eastern Michigan University. It's an electronic community of all kinds of folks who care and want to write about EMU. Rarely is there discussion here of emus. See the "About..." page to read more.